The Cost of Storage
about 1K$/TB
12/1/1999
Price vs disk capacity
k$/TB
9/1/2000
Price vs disk capacity
raw
9/1/2001
k$/TB
Price vs disk capacity
40
35
40
IDE
30
SCSI
35
SCSI
IDE
IDE
SCSI
$
y = 17.9x
25
SCSI
30
10.0
20
259.0
IDE
15
4/1/2002
Price vs disk capacity
0
800 200
$
y = 13x
y = 6.7x
SCSI
$
200
600
100
1000
400 0
y = 7.2x
0
IDE
SCSI
20
GB
IDE
40
y = 6x
y = 3.8x
y
20
40
60
Raw Disk unit Size GB
60
= 2.0x
80
$
$
$
1000
900
1000800
900700
800600
1400
700500
600400
1200 300
500
1000
1400 400200
100
300
800
0
1200
8.0
20
10
10.0
7.0
15
5
6.09.0
10
0
5.0
08.0
54.0
raw
k$/TB
rawSCSI
GB
30
IDE
k$/TB
10
7.0
03.0
06.0
2.0
20
20
0.0
0
400
50
100
150
Raw Disk unit Size GB
200
y=x
200
0
0
50
100
150
Raw Disk unit Size GB
200
50
60
60
80
SCSI
$
$
600
40
40
Disk unit size GB
1.05.0
0
6
4.0
0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
50
0
IDE
100
150
Disk unit size GB
50
100
Disk unit size GB
200
150
200
Kilo
Disk Evolution
Mega
Giga
Tera
Peta
Exa
• Capacity:100x in 10 years
1 TB 3.5” drive in 2005
20 TB?
in 2012?!
• System on a chip
• High-speed SAN
Zetta
Yotta
• Disk replacing tape
• Disk is super computer!
Disks are becoming computers
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Smart drives
Camera with micro-drive
Replay / Tivo / Ultimate TV
Phone with micro-drive
MP3 players
Tablet
Xbox
Many more…
Applications
Web, DBMS, Files
OS
Disk Ctlr +
1Ghz cpu+
1GB RAM
Comm:
Infiniband,
Ethernet,
radio…
Intermediate Step: Shared Logic
•
•
•
•
•
•
Brick with 8-12 disk drives
200 mips/arm (or more)
2xGbpsEthernet
General purpose OS
10k$/TB to 100k$/TB
Shared
–
–
–
–
–
Sheet metal
Power
Support/Config
Security
Network ports
Snap
~1TB
12x80GB NAS
NetApp
~.5TB
8x70GB NAS
Maxstor
~2TB
12x160GB NAS
IBM
TotalStorage
~360GB
10x36GB NAS
• These bricks could run applications (e.g. SQL or Mail or..)
Hardware
• Homogenous machines
leads to quick response
through reallocation
• HP desktop machines,
320MB RAM, 3u high, 4
100GB IDE Drives
• $4k/TB (street),
2.5processors/TB, 1GB
RAM/TB
• 3 weeks from ordering to
operational
Slide courtesy of Brewster Kahle, @ Archive.org
Disk as Tape
• Tape is unreliable, specialized,
slow, low density, not improving fast,
and expensive
• Using removable hard drives to replace tape’s
function has been successful
• When a “tape” is needed, the drive is put in a
machine and it is online. No need to copy
from tape before it is used.
• Portable, durable, fast, media cost = raw
tapes, dense. Unknown longevity: suspected
good.
Slide courtesy of Brewster Kahle, @ Archive.org
Disk As Tape: What format?
• Today I send NTFS/SQL disks.
• But that is not a good format for Linux.
• Solution: Ship NFS/CIFS/ODBC servers (not
disks)
• Plug “disk” into LAN.
– DHCP then file or DB server via standard interface.
– Web Service in long term